Passion for photography, a key to produce better renderings?

Dear Sirs & Ma'ams,

I've been rendering using Vray for 1 1/2 year now & I've noticed that to have a beautiful & dramatic outcome in rendering, you must also have a knowledge & passion for photography which I lack right now. I always say, "basta model lang ng model", because I focus more on modeling certain objects & putting nice & seamless textures in it, but sometimes these efforts are not visible because of bad lighting or cluttered scenes. I don't have an eye for photography, or let's say, I don't know how to put the camera at the right angle & the proper light effects which to achieve this, I edit a lot in photoshop or chamba lang minsan pag maganda ang result. But to make a consistent outcome, what are the photography tips that you can share in order for me to have a better photo/renderings?

here's a sample of my rendering.. pls, comment according to your photography knowledge & views.. thank you..

pede maging advantage as a photographer...proper knowledge,and constant practice imho you need in order to have it.you dont need to become a photographer just to have an eye.

Nice rendering...

Why don't you post in in Architectural Gallery to be commented?

Welcome to CGP....

jenaro wrote:pede maging advantage as a photographer...proper knowledge,and constant practice imho you need in order to have it.you dont need to become a photographer just to have an eye.

un po lacking ko ryt now.."the eye for photography".. in my case, I really like to enroll in a photography class pero dahil s hectic sked s work mukhang msasayang lng.. tips sir?

hahaha kilala ko itong plan na ito. sa balmoral ba ito. hihihihi

hmmm ok naman ung rendering. nito

cguro yung intensity ng ilaw pag sa photo mas more sya kaysa sa nakikita ng mata mo.

para sa akin ndi mo kailangan na my passion ka sa photography para makaachieve ng magandang rendering.

its how you see things and how do you feel about your work. cguro expand na lang ng ibang masters dito.

I like this post, its true...but in some how may pagkakaiba yung dalawa, sa photography, kailangan mo ng magandang lights, proper timing, good location, choosing the right moods & climate and most important thing maganda ang camera mo...while in 3D Rendering, you can control whatever you want from modeling, lights, camera, moods, effects etc...till the final presentation....pero nagkakapareho sila kung paano ka mag-compose ng isang subject because you are the one who will conceptualize being an artist.

hhhhhmmmm ako confuse ako with this relationship.....why is it pag ang isang tao is into architecture or 3d modeling they often tend to be attracted to photography?
I myself is into architectecture and modeling and sometimes i also want to study photography? bat kaya?

kasi sir photography is like an art. kagaya nating mga artist photography is one of our favorite. OT

Photography and CG well they co-relate but it doesn't mean you need to be an expert in one to be good in the other.

It all boils down to how you would want to use the discipline. If you want to capture the moment as it happens or about to unfold - then shoot it. But if you want to visualize something that isn't there - you end up with cg.

To be honest - I am not a fan of cg'ing something that is present - specially if realism is the goal. Because you'd rather shoot it with a camera - I'm sure it will be photoreal 100 percent.

They complement each other because CG can expand the single photograph. In the same way photographs (like your textures) can do wonders to your renderings.

One thing common with the two along with painting is composition - Composition is not beholden to just CG because composition is about beauty and what's pleasing to the eye. If you can arrange your elements whether that be CG or real-life with sense of direction, focus and flow - then you can also do that in any other discipline.

The key is observation, look at how light paint the colors around you, how dirt and ramdomness play in real-life objects. You can capture that moment for referencing in CG later with your camera. But it does help to train your eye, input them to memory so that you can use the same in your works as a cg artists or as a photographer.

To answer the original question - yes it does help to know a bit about photography but it does not mean you cannot do good cg without it.

i guess may relation.. di ba kapag nagpapapraktis tayong magrender, magazines are always one of our resources.. how photographers, set up their cameras.. use lights etc. ang dami ring nakita ko na they use a photograph image.. nainspire, tapos model at render..

ngayon para sa akin pareho lang at complet sila kakaiba nga lang ng media. pero dahil nga parang parallel sila with each other hindi mo maiwasan na ang mga renderer ay kakambal na ang pagkagusto sa photography. kasi there are times talaga na what you could capture in photograph is what you want to explore in your render. so in that case talaga advisable na kung gusto mong magrender, use photograph to analyse things. This is really a good way of learning. But again you dont need to be an expert in photography... just use it as a tool.

Photography man or CG, my only suggestion in order to get that perfect shot is focus/focal point/subject.

Learn to let go of the other elements leaving that one beautiful thing standout.

Best but cruel example is isang magandang babae with her 4 ugly friends. that's a very good composition for me compared to 5 pretty girls in one picture.

nomeradona wrote:i guess may relation.. di ba kapag nagpapapraktis tayong magrender, magazines are always one of our resources.. how photographers, set up their cameras.. use lights etc. ang dami ring nakita ko na they use a photograph image.. nainspire, tapos model at render..

ngayon para sa akin pareho lang at complet sila kakaiba nga lang ng media. pero dahil nga parang parallel sila with each other hindi mo maiwasan na ang mga renderer ay kakambal na ang pagkagusto sa photography. kasi there are times talaga na what you could capture in photograph is what you want to explore in your render. so in that case talaga advisable na kung gusto mong magrender, use photograph to analyse things. This is really a good way of learning. But again you dont need to be an expert in photography... just use it as a tool.

actually may punto ka sir tunkol sa magazines at irerender,tama na may alam ka sa compositions na ilalagay mo sa scene bago mo ito kunan, example,bakit ka maglalagay ng green apple or vase na kulay green sa scene, may dahilan ang mga yun, isa ay ang makabo ng composition, at xempre dahil narin sa color complementaries.. kaya kapag magrerender tayo, iisipin muna natin kung ano rin ang mga abubot sa scene na makakatulong sa pagbuhay nito..

v_wrangler wrote:Photography and CG well they co-relate but it doesn't mean you need to be an expert in one to be good in the other.

It all boils down to how you would want to use the discipline. If you want to capture the moment as it happens or about to unfold - then shoot it. But if you want to visualize something that isn't there - you end up with cg.

To be honest - I am not a fan of cg'ing something that is present - specially if realism is the goal. Because you'd rather shoot it with a camera - I'm sure it will be photoreal 100 percent.

They complement each other because CG can expand the single photograph. In the same way photographs (like your textures) can do wonders to your renderings.

One thing common with the two along with painting is composition - Composition is not beholden to just CG because composition is about beauty and what's pleasing to the eye. If you can arrange your elements whether that be CG or real-life with sense of direction, focus and flow - then you can also do that in any other discipline.

The key is observation, look at how light paint the colors around you, how dirt and ramdomness play in real-life objects. You can capture that moment for referencing in CG later with your camera. But it does help to train your eye, input them to memory so that you can use the same in your works as a cg artists or as a photographer.

To answer the original question - yes it does help to know a bit about photography but it does not mean you cannot do good cg without it.

Thank you sir.. observation.. i'll keep that in mind..

bokkins wrote:Photography man or CG, my only suggestion in order to get that perfect shot is focus/focal point/subject.

Learn to let go of the other elements leaving that one beautiful thing standout.

Best but cruel example is isang magandang babae with her 4 ugly friends. that's a very good composition for me compared to 5 pretty girls in one picture.

magandang sample nga yan sir.. tnx a lot... focal point..

pakunat wrote:hahaha kilala ko itong plan na ito. sa balmoral ba ito. hihihihi

hmmm ok naman ung rendering. nito

cguro yung intensity ng ilaw pag sa photo mas more sya kaysa sa nakikita ng mata mo.

para sa akin ndi mo kailangan na my passion ka sa photography para makaachieve ng magandang rendering.

its how you see things and how do you feel about your work. cguro expand na lang ng ibang masters dito.

alm ko nmn n mppacn mo hehe..kc sabi ni zac mglagay dw me ng sample render..e yan ung gingawa ko nw.. anyways, kelangan ko p nga cguro mg-observe..puro kc koreanobela inaa2pag ko e..

hehehhehe mukhang nagspark ng discussion yung reply ko ha...
For me i think they really have this relationship directly or indirectly....because whether painting or photograpy or rendering pa man yan they all both trying to capture or depict that unique and beautiful moment....
I think yun ang meron thats why they compliment with one another...

I agree, you’re getting a lot of great advice from the members, architectural photography and architectural visualization are both related; it’s all about being able to capture the spirit of the space. We can learn a lot from looking at the iconic photographers like Julius Shulman (who just recently passed), Hedrich Blessing, Chuck Choi (I have to give him props because I see him every morning at the dog park, not to mention we use him for shooting a lot of our work : ), etc…These are all talented photographers that are able to see a space and capture it in all its glory. There’s basic principles that we can all follow, like the many rules of composition, seeing correct linear perspective, keeping your verticals straight and being able to place people correctly in the scene. We should also be looking at our virtual spaces as if we had a camera in our hands, in our case it’s our virtual cam. We have the advantage of being able to tweak the time of day, set up our own lights, and walk around the scene just as if we were there in real life.

If you have an opportunity to take photography classes, I definitely recommend it…you can learn things like setting the right exposure and aperture controls on a physical camera that you can apply to your mr/vray cameras as well. You can learn how photographers add rim lights to accent particular furniture or a wall washing light to separate background and foreground elements. Etc…etc…there’s so much to learn

From what I see in your post, it looks like you’ve got a pretty good handle on the basics. The only thing I can see that’s not correct is the background image that you’re using; the perspective doesn’t match the interior. But I do like the mix of cool natural lighting and warm fluorescent in the interior. Keep it up! Oh yeah, and welcome to CGP

v_wrangler wrote:
The key is observation, look at how light paint the colors around you, how dirt and ramdomness play in real-life objects....

AMEN! Observation.

nomeradona wrote:.., use photograph to analyse things. This is really a good way of learning. But again you dont need to be an expert in photography... just use it as a tool.

Hallelujah! Analyse things - see how the real world and how things interact.

the fact that every 3d program has CAMERAS and LIGHTS already means that you are somehow creating your own PHOTOGRAPH. Be it an architectural piece or a graphic subject.

master montree attests to this. long before there was Vray he was able to achieve a "photographic" set of renders based on scanline alone because he admitted to relying on photos as references.

that being said.. i will raise a point on DOFs. if one observes architectural presentations DOF is rarely used. why? this is because design is always the highlight of architectural visualization. and design relies heavily on details. this is why every architect or interior designer client will not entertain any renderings with heavy DOFs. unless you are into a cinematic effect, then yes by all means blur your secondary elements to infinity. our hired photographers don't usually go below an aperture of 5.6 when taking finished projects (from our previous design company). in photography parlance this translates to sharp pictures.

to me the basis for judging a good render relies heavily on camera placement and lighting. a good 3d artist knows exactly these basic principles. so much so how a good photographer chooses where to focus/position his camera (and to a certain extent, cropping) and capture the right lighting condition - not by merely cleaning up the photos noise-free and applying all those lightroom tricks. a good framing and a good light setup will always save a poor model.. but more often than not the reverse doesnt hold true. IMHO.

here's to add, i can't disagree to almost all that had been said already:

the best skill we can derive from photography is 'visualization' -- developing that eye for composition. establishing the conceptual picture before all things are executed be it in design or 3d.

bokkins wrote:Photography man or CG, my only suggestion in order to get that perfect shot is focus/focal point/subject.

Learn to let go of the other elements leaving that one beautiful thing standout.

Best but cruel example is isang magandang babae with her 4 ugly friends. that's a very good composition for me compared to 5 pretty girls in one picture.

hahahaha....

mushroom wrote:to me the basis for judging a good render relies heavily on camera placement and lighting. a good 3d artist knows exactly these basic principles. so much so how a good photographer chooses where to focus/position his camera (and to a certain extent, cropping) and capture the right lighting condition - not by merely cleaning up the photos noise-free and applying all those lightroom tricks. a good framing and a good light setup will always save a poor model.. but more often than not the reverse doesnt hold true. IMHO.

e2 nga po mga factors n dapat ko i-consider..tnx po..

AJ Cortez wrote:We can learn a lot from looking at the iconic photographers like Julius Shulman (who just recently passed), Hedrich Blessing, Chuck Choi (I have to give him props because I see him every morning at the dog park, not to mention we use him for shooting a lot of our work : ), etc…

If you have an opportunity to take photography classes, I definitely recommend it…you can learn things like setting the right exposure and aperture controls on a physical camera that you can apply to your mr/vray cameras as well. You can learn how photographers add rim lights to accent particular furniture or a wall washing light to separate background and foreground elements. Etc…etc…there’s so much to learn

From what I see in your post, it looks like you’ve got a pretty good handle on the basics. The only thing I can see that’s not correct is the background image that you’re using; the perspective doesn’t match the interior. But I do like the mix of cool natural lighting and warm fluorescent in the interior. Keep it up! Oh yeah, and welcome to CGP

astig nyo nmn po.. anyways,i wish there will come a time that i can really take photography lessons & squeeze it on my hectic work schedule..but for now, maybe i can also take your advice by observing the works of those iconic photographers you mentioned.. tnx sir